Commission rules on whether 48 hours was enough to force a resignation
An employee who quit after two days lost his claim that he was constructively dismissed because his employer failed to accommodate his anxiety and depression.
The Fair Work Commission ruled on January 16, 2026 that Moegamat Dean Jacobs voluntarily resigned from Holloway Transport Pty Ltd and was not forced to leave by the company's conduct, dismissing his general protections application.
Jacobs began as a sales representative on October 1, 2025. During interviews with HR manager Georgia Filandros and Felicia Holloway, he disclosed his mental health condition and said he would need structured and paced training.
The company arranged for his first day to be observation-only, pairing him with senior sales representative Kyran Colley. Jacobs later told the Commission this training was chaotic and unstructured, with no manual or written instruction.
On day two, after Jacobs missed some steps during a training session, Holloway joined a Google Meet with him around 3pm. Jacobs said Holloway told him the job was highly stressful and she didn't want him to burn out, then asked whether he wished to continue. He testified that he indicated he would "probably leave" and that Holloway immediately accepted his resignation.
Holloway's account differed. She said that when Jacobs told her he felt overwhelmed, she explained the environment was fast-paced but reassured him that training would continue over the coming weeks. She offered to stop training and resume the following day if he was happy to return.
According to the company's three witnesses, Jacobs responded that the role wasn't suitable for him, that he didn't wish to waste anyone's time, and that he had decided not to continue. He attended Filandros's office around 4pm and confirmed he wanted to resign immediately.
Jacobs argued his resignation was forced by the company's failure to provide reasonable adjustments for his mental disability. He claimed the company imposed two impossible conditions: getting his performance "up to scratch" within two weeks and conducting 30 more processes by Christmas.
Deputy President Cross examined whether the company's conduct left Jacobs with "no effective or real choice but to resign." The legal test required determining whether the employer intended to end the employment or whether termination was the probable result of the employer's conduct.
The Commission found no evidence the company intended to end Jacobs's employment. The decision noted the employer "sought to accommodate the Applicant's disclosed anxiety by adopting a gradual training approach, beginning with observation-only training."
The Commission accepted that Holloway offered an alternative to resignation by suggesting they pause training and resume the next day. Deputy President Cross wrote that this "demonstrates that resignation was not the only available option and undermines any conclusion that the Respondent's conduct made resignation the probable result."
The Commission acknowledged Jacobs may have found the training environment challenging given his mental health condition, but concluded the question was whether the company's conduct objectively left him with no real choice but to resign. After less than two days of a two-week training period, the decision stated, "it is fanciful to suggest" the company would impose conditions aimed at forcing a resignation.
The company's documented adjustments to the training program, including the observation-only first day arranged in response to Jacobs's disclosed anxiety, established a record of accommodation efforts. When Jacobs expressed feeling overwhelmed, Holloway's offer to pause and resume the next day rather than immediately accepting his resignation proved decisive in demonstrating the employee had genuine alternatives to resigning.
For HR departments managing employees with disclosed mental health conditions, the case underscores the importance of documenting accommodation measures and avoiding hasty acceptance of resignations during emotional moments. When an employee expresses doubt about continuing, offering alternatives and time to reconsider can be the difference between a voluntary resignation and a successful constructive dismissal claim.
The Commission dismissed the application, finding Jacobs was not dismissed within the meaning of the Fair Work Act.
